Connecticut is the seventh-largest producer of firearms in the country, with gun manufacturers currently accounting for just under 3,000 direct jobs as well as the thousands of jobs supported through related industries — but thanks to the state’s recent outlawing of ‘high-capacity magazines’ and an ‘assault weapons’-ban expansion, that might be set to change. Last month, we already learned of PTR Industries’ announcement of their pending relocation from Connecticut after the state banned many of their products, and the NYT reported this week that they’re not the only ones:

In a state desperate to maintain and revive its industrial base, Mark Malkowski thinks he should be getting gold stars.

He started a manufacturing company at age 25, and in 10 years built it into an industry leader, with 200 employees, that sells 6,000 of its products every month at roughly $1,000 each. The company, Stag Arms, is currently almost a year behind in fulfilling orders.

The bitter battle over new gun laws in Connecticut has passed. But two months later, gunmakers like Mr. Malkowski are still weighing their options, including moving from a state long thought of as a cradle of the American gun industry. Meanwhile, supporters of the legislation are balancing their desire to limit guns with the jobs and taxes that the gun industry provides in a country where 300 million guns are in circulation and 5 million are manufactured each year.

One of the most galling parts about the whole thing, of course, is that the state seems to want to be able to both have their cake and eat it, too: The new gun-control laws did not restrict gun manufacturing in Connecticut, but merely the ability of those businesses to sell and distribute what they manufacture in the state — but they sure would like for those jobs to stick around!

The disparities can look awkward. Connecticut lawmakers have been pushing to create a national park at the historic former site of the Colts firearms plant in Hartford  while pushing for sweeping gun legislation. And many gun opponents say they hope the gun manufacturers remain in Connecticut even if the products they produce are banned there.

Ron Pinciaro, executive director of an anti-gun group, Connecticut Against Gun Violence, said he would not want to see Connecticut employees hurt because of the vote.

I wish they would stay here, he said, and I dont really see that as being contradictory. …

I think companies will continue to leave Connecticut both because its a terrible place to be a manufacturer and because of the political environment, said Lawrence G. Keane, senior vice president and general counsel of the shooting sports foundation. Its completely hypocritical to say you can stay and make your products, but theyre so dangerous your employees cant buy them.

No kidding. The firearms industry, of course, is hardly a special case — if Connecticut and other such states want to keep introducing more onerous regulations and taxes that keep making it tougher for businesses to feel economically secure and stay competitive, then they better be ready to pay the price.

PTR Industries announced last month the company would relocate, most likely to Texas. Others, including Colt & Sturm, Ruger and Stag Arms, are likely to follow suit, taking with them about 3,000 jobs and an estimated $1.75 billion in taxable revenues.

If they leave, its because they want to leave. They have a decision to make  are they loyal to their employees who helped them build that company in this place? Gov. Dannel Malloy surmised last week at a community forum in Bristol, home of PTR.

Its unfortunate that, when confronted with the prospect of yet more bad economic news, not only did the governor do his best impression of Alfred E. Newman, but he insulted the entrepreneurs who built those companies by accusing them of being disloyal to their workers.

...with 200 employees, that sells 6,000 of its products every month at roughly $1,000 each.

States cannot afford to lose such economic successes.

All of the alleged "green" industries combined, one suspects, do not amount to the economic gain of 200 employed plus 6 mil in monthly sales, with no government support. (The ripple effects are huge, btw, and severely compound the financial losses to the once-great CT).

They have a decision to make  are they loyal to their employees who helped them build that company in this place? Gov. Dannel Malloy surmised last week at a community forum in Bristol, home of PTR.

This guy is seriously screwed-up. Employees can be found just about anywhere, and I imagine there would be more than a few of their existing employees that would be willing to relocate if these companies do decide to leave the state.

I’m no experts, but I believe that fire-arm making requires a highly-skilled, highly-experienced workforce. So these companies would want to take their employees with them, helping them re-locate. I don’t think they’d ditch their employees...

Would love it if they came to Arizona, especially to my home hometown (population approximately 50,000), just outside the main gate of the US Army’s Ft Huachuca (pronounced Waw Chew Ka) and only approximately 28 miles east of Tombstone, Arizona.

This guy is seriously screwed-up. Employees can be found just about anywhere, and I imagine there would be more than a few of their existing employees that would be willing to relocate if these companies do decide to leave the state.

Bristol is a bit of a dump. I guess they refurbished the Lake Compounce amusement park, former home of the Colonel Clown show. Other than that, a bunch of ESPN sat dishes. You have to hop on I-84 and go a ways before you go anyplace interesting. It shouldn't be hard to get folks to leave Malloy's CT. The problem is that some guys who work in gun operations in CT might be otherwise liberal, and tend to mess up the places that CTers move to (e.g. NC).

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.